So... the fact that something may have been done incorrectly (either willfully or by mistake) in the past is NOT justification for continuing to do it incorrectly, but is instead helpful in finding past mistakes and correcting them when possible while also helping to keep such errors from happening again?Need help with a Change Request?Click here to contact an approver!Problems with CCL?Send an email right away (don't delay!) to helpdesk@comiccollectorlive.com615-264-4747Offices are open M-F 8am-5pm Central Time.You can also e-mail the Chief Brand Officer directly to try to resolve questions/stuff at steve@golocomedia.com for help with password resets, general customer service questions, store order resolution, credit card store updating, questions about comic books and CCL, etc...

Xylob's Most Wanted:G.I.Joe Special Missions TPB 2Tales from the Transformers Beast Wars: Critical MassYoungblood Bloodsport #2 maybe? can you help identify?

Dylan, those scans of sealed Whitman bags with those issues in them are sufficient, in my opinion, to get them added as Whitman variants.

The images are blocked at my office (which is odd since so little is blocked here). But if they are just the direct editions, I don't think it really matters that they were also in Whitman bags. Should we have the same issue in three times - one that came out of a Whitman bags, the direct and the newsstand. Just once is enough per CCL's long standing policy."Words have meaning." - my wife

Dylan, those scans of sealed Whitman bags with those issues in them are sufficient, in my opinion, to get them added as Whitman variants.

Hmmm but they are after June 1979

Spider-Man wrote:

That said, I now feel that the June 1979 date is a good cut off for Whitman variants based on my own experience.

Read above, lol

Spider-Man wrote:

I approved some of your requests. I read the info on the BIP site and looked at their examples and took it as good info. I believed that the diamond boxes signified a Whitman variant. I also read the line about Marvel using the diamond on Direct Editions starting in June 1979 (as pointed out by SwiftMann), but it seemed to me that it was not conclusive but could apply to both Direct and Whitman 3-packs. I also read some good posts on another site (Google "Marvel Whitman variants", site is collectors society). But as I read the recent posts here, I became less convinced of the validity of the diamond being exclusive to Whitman after June 1979.

I am now convinced and agree with icarus201 that the only true Whitman variants are pre-June 1979 and have a blank UPC box or a regular UPC box in 1977-78. I came to this conclusion after digging out and checking my own copies of Spectacular Spider-Man. I bought my comics at one of the early comic book shops (The Million Year Picnic in Cambridge MA). I did not buy any Whitman 3-packs. All of my copies of the issues in question have the diamond price box and the UPC box with the slash through it. That has convinced me that Marvel used that on their early version of the Direct Editions.

I have read all the other forums and opinions always vary. I have seen list that include issue #60 example (HERE). What it boils down to like I said before is CCL makign a stand. Either the evidence says yea or nay. If you say issues #2-30 I can add those as they come in and happy.

Spider-Man wrote:

Just because I may have approved the Whitman variant for any issues after #30 of Spectacular Spider-Man does not mean we will approve any more if that was in error. We make mistakes, we are human and when additional information is brought up, opinions can change.

So issues #2-30 are good? Plus annual #1 :)

Spider-Man wrote:

I hope this helps and that you continue to add info to the database and are not discouraged by this.

I probably will, but might stay away from and ASMs, lol

Thanks to the following sellers for helping me put together my complete run of Amazing Spider-man #1-700

Even the clear polybagged comics from the 90s, that have NO writing on them are considered variants in the database. So why wouldn't these OBVIOUSLY different looking bagged comics with "Whitman" writing on it not be considered variants?

And who cares if they're after 1979 or not. It's quite apparent they're different issues than the regular editions.Make sure that you read and understand the forum rules here

Even the clear polybagged comics from the 90s, that have NO writing on them are considered variants in the database. So why wouldn't these OBVIOUSLY different looking bagged comics with "Whitman" writing on it not be considered variants?

And who cares if they're after 1979 or not. It's quite apparent they're different issues than the regular editions.

The bagged version itself wouldn't be a variant because it's more than one issue in the bag. CCL does not currently have a way of listing these multi-packs. So, if the comics inside the multi-packs are exactly the same as either the direct or newsstand once they are out of the pack, they aren't variants."Words have meaning." - my wife

Dylan, those scans of sealed Whitman bags with those issues in them are sufficient, in my opinion, to get them added as Whitman variants.

The images are blocked at my office (which is odd since so little is blocked here). But if they are just the direct editions, I don't think it really matters that they were also in Whitman bags. Should we have the same issue in three times - one that came out of a Whitman bags, the direct and the newsstand. Just once is enough per CCL's long standing policy.

Well you already have a policy of NO newsstands but yes they should be in twice. I can point out hundreds of comics that have bagged and unbagged. Ultimate spiderman #160 came bagged and is in DB a well as #160 unbagged.

But like I said that is for you guys to discuss in some dark sweaty scary hidden corner of this forum and come to a conclusion.

Like I said before I have probably added about 50% of all the spiderman variants, but if you were to say today DF is no longer allowable I wouldnt keep trying to add them. CCL needs to make a stand.

You can decide they have enough evidence for XXX number of issues being whitmans, IE till June 1979

You can say after June 1979 it wont be added unless bagged. As it is clear Whitman continued after June 1979 but maybe Marvel stopped giving them the exclusive diamond cover.

You can say only whitmans regardless of print date bagged are acceptable.

Or you can say NO whitmans too much trouble.

However a decision does need to be made. The ONLY reason I even started adding Whitmans was because you already had 2 in the DB under Spectacular spiderman so I figured might as well finish it off and make DB complete, just like I did with the Ultimate Spiderman #1s (adding 10+ #1 variants)

I am ok with whatever decision is made as long as it is concise so i know what to add and what not too.

Also on side note I apologize if I come off mean or abrupt sometimes, I just get frustrated and might post without thinking, lol. I mean no disrespect to any of the approvers but feel sometimes it is easier to discuss in open.

Thanks to the following sellers for helping me put together my complete run of Amazing Spider-man #1-700

The bagged version itself wouldn't be a variant because it's more than one issue in the bag. CCL does not currently have a way of listing these multi-packs. So, if the comics iI think Spectacunside the multi-packs are exactly the same as either the direct or newsstand once they are out of the pack, they aren't variants.

Didnt see this while I was writing last one and shame on you for being here while at work, lol

I see your point about the multiple comics in bag, but couldnt they be cross linked same as when a full set of books are signed by DF but only one COA? I cant think of example off my head but sure I cam accross it here, maybe the spiderman maximum carnage set, hmmmm

Also your statement doesnt take into effect pre June 1979 when they were different then the direct editions. Before June 1979 Marvel only made one 2 issues, 1 issue for newstands and direct and one issue for Whitman with the diamond covers. Before June 1979 Marvel send comic stores and newsstands the same book, then they realized that unscrupulous comic stores were selling the unsold books to newsstands who would then tear off the covers and send back to marvel for refunds, thus the Change in June/July and further change in December/January to nix that.Thanks to the following sellers for helping me put together my complete run of Amazing Spider-man #1-700

Even the clear polybagged comics from the 90s, that have NO writing on them are considered variants in the database. So why wouldn't these OBVIOUSLY different looking bagged comics with "Whitman" writing on it not be considered variants?

And who cares if they're after 1979 or not. It's quite apparent they're different issues than the regular editions.

The bagged version itself wouldn't be a variant because it's more than one issue in the bag. CCL does not currently have a way of listing these multi-packs. So, if the comics inside the multi-packs are exactly the same as either the direct or newsstand once they are out of the pack, they aren't variants.

Ah, I see. Like the old 3-pack comics they used to sell at Toys R Us and K-Mart. Then I guess, yeah, it would be hard to list these as individual issues.

Could we add a separate series for these, maybe? Or even separate entry within a series. Much like a Box of cards are done in the trading card part of the software.Make sure that you read and understand the forum rules here

My hat is off to you, sir. I had been completely unaware that Whitman continued distributing Marvel comics after Marvel started marking direct-sales copies differently from newsstand copies. Thank you for sharing your evidence with us.

...Also your statement doesnt take into effect pre June 1979 when they were different then the direct editions. Before June 1979 Marvel only made one 2 issues, 1 issue for newstands and direct and one issue for Whitman with the diamond covers. Before June 1979 Marvel send comic stores and newsstands the same book, then they realized that unscrupulous comic stores were selling the unsold books to newsstands who would then tear off the covers and send back to marvel for refunds, thus the Change in June/July and further change in December/January to nix that.

I can corroborate the broad strokes of what freakdylan is saying.

I bought comics from a direct-sales shop from Sept. 1977 thru April 1978, and again beginning summer 1979 (and continuing to the present). During 1977–78, I noticed no difference between direct-sales comics and newsstand comics. On my VERY FIRST VISIT to a direct-sales shop in summer 1979, the difference in direct-sales Marvels was unmistakeable (DC was to continue with identical newsstand and direct comics for about another year). I may have told this story before but, at that time, Whitmans were scorned by collectors, and these new Marvels looked much too much like Whitmans to be appealing to me. I remember talking with the store owner about the Marvels, and he didn't disagree with me. He said he had complained to his distributor, saying "our collectors don't want these." That didn't seem to matter to Marvel, and I think freakdylan's analysis of why Marvel made the switch is spot-on.

That same dealer later tried to sell me a fresh-off-the-press counterfeit Cerebus #1, and I now believe he did so knowingly. If he would try to defraud me, why wouldn't he try to defraud Marvel?

...I also read the line about Marvel using the diamond on Direct Editions starting in June 1979 (as pointed out by SwiftMann), but it seemed to me that it was not conclusive but could apply to both Direct and Whitman 3-packs....

Again, possibly repeating myself, but what convinces me that June cover-dated Marvels published in 1979 mark the definitive beginning of differentiable Marvel direct editions is that, prior to June 1979, only SOME Marvel comics exist in "diamond" editions, and beginning with June 1979, ALL Marvel comics (until mid–1982) exist in "diamond" editions.

If memory serves, that date is also corroborated by a news item in a contemporaneous issue of The Comic Reader. My recollection is that TCR identified the comics as those published in March (rather than by cover date), but with Marvel's three-month lead time (until ca. 1990), it works out to the same batch of issues.

Didnt want to bring up one of my rants again but I submitted another Whitman variant and got this reply

Quote:

I thought we had decided that the only Marvel Whitman covers were the white box? I'm not certain, so I'm not going to approve or deny this one.

No obviously I am not privy to the dark corners the approvers discuss this stuff, but I have a few opinions on this.

If CCL wants to only include blank UPC covers then they shouldnt call them "Whitman Covers" but instead "Blank UPC Covers". Because if you add say issue 3 and 5 as whitmans because they have blank UPCs then you are going to have people argue issue #4 should be added even though it has a UPC.

Right now CCL adds price variants, 2nd prints, alternate covers etc.

So my suggestion would be to only list the "Blank UPC Covers" as variants and title them as such. This way you do away with the whole whitman argument, you are not pro or con whitmans, you are just pro blank upc covers. It is an obvious cover difference that no argument can be made otherwise.

I will be happy to go through all the spidey books and change to "Blank UPC covers" and only submit such as well, but only if the whitmans that might currently be listed but with no blank UPC are invalidated.

DylanThanks to the following sellers for helping me put together my complete run of Amazing Spider-man #1-700

That was one approver asking for clarification. Provide simple clarification in the CR (Whitman covers aren't just blank UPCs) and not a rant about how everything should be changed because one approver who doesn't have the entire history of Whitmans memorized asked a question and things would be approved much easier for you.

And slight "obvious cover difference(s)" do not a variant make. Newsstands and directs for instance."Words have meaning." - my wife

That was one approver asking for clarification. Provide simple clarification in the CR (Whitman covers aren't just blank UPCs) and not a rant about how everything should be changed because one approver who doesn't have the entire history of Whitmans memorized asked a question and things would be approved much easier for you.

And slight "obvious cover difference(s)" do not a variant make. Newsstands and directs for instance.

I wasnt ranting about changing everything just to rant.

Nobody has the history of Whitmans. Marvel to this day has not clarified which comics were exclusive to whitmans and which werent. Everything about Whitmans as of this second is just speculation. So unless somehow you are privy to information that no one else on this planet knows then nobody can state exactly which marvels are whitmans beyond a doubt and which arent.

It has been shown on numerous occasions where old store owners remember receiving diamond covers on certain comics even though they were supposedly only for multi packs.

Also I did reply to the CR with a reply, as requested. I was simply making an observation about how whitmans could be handled, but I guess since you know it all and know the true history of Whitmans then no need. I wont bother making suggestions or asking questions since the all powerful Swiftman knows it all. I apologize for ranting but assumed when the title of this forum section is "Change request discussion" I could discuss a change request, guess not.Thanks to the following sellers for helping me put together my complete run of Amazing Spider-man #1-700

You weren't discussing anything. You were ranting about an approver having asked a question about stuff that "no one on the planet knows." And no where in my reply do I say anything about Whitmans other than there are more than just blank UPCs. But you have chosen to grossly over react with ridiculous absolutes and inaccurate versions of conversations. If you would please add even the slightest bit of commentary or links (as has been asked since you started with the USM #1s but for whatever reasons you can't be bothered) all these CRs would be be smoother. That's my only point in these two posts. Give us something to work with when you add these submissions and don't flip out every time a question asked."Words have meaning." - my wife

You weren't discussing anything. You were ranting about an approver having asked a question about stuff that "no one on the planet knows." And no where in my reply do I say anything about Whitmans other than there are more than just blank UPCs. But you have chosen to grossly over react with ridiculous absolutes and inaccurate versions of conversations. If you would please add even the slightest bit of commentary or links (as has been asked since you started with the USM #1s but for whatever reasons you can't be bothered) all these CRs would be be smoother. That's my only point in these two posts. Give us something to work with when you add these submissions and don't flip out every time a question asked.

Well your correct I wasnt discussing anything since it takes 2 people to discuss something and your reply was essentially dont ask questions, dont make suggestions simply post info on CR and (banned) off.

I was not ranting about the approver or what he/she said. All I was doing was giving my 2 cents about a way to handle Whitmans. As I stated in my last post there is no definitive proof of what comics are marvel whitmans and which ones arent. Even though by your post here, obviously people who DO know the whitman history and know the true facts (YOU). So i suggest you make those FACTS available in the change request guidelines.

All I did was offer a suggestion, only list the blank upc ones, since they could not be sold in stores, newsstands etc simply because they had no UPC.

You however chose to ignore this suggestion or discussion and instead told me to shut up and only reply in CR's. you didnt say no we either want all whitmans or none, etc etc, just shut up and post in CR.

Now to this part

Quote:

If you would please add even the slightest bit of commentary or links (as has been asked since you started with the USM #1s but for whatever reasons you can't be bothered) all these CRs would be be smoother.

I have gone out of my way to reply to any questions asked with my CR's. I even unbagged a madengine comic so I could take scans of the back cover and insert to help with the approval. So dont try to make it look like I post a CR then run away and (banned) about it. Sometime I have no info other then the comic itself which I always give. Maybe you should read some of my old emails I had lengthy discussions with another approver about all those USM #1s! Or maybe I should have linked to those emails so as not to ruffle your feathers since you seem to only want info in CRs and no questions asked.Thanks to the following sellers for helping me put together my complete run of Amazing Spider-man #1-700

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.